Juma and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia on a Global Special Humanitarian visa, sought judicial review of the decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant had not passed the character test due to serious criminal conduct. The Minister's delegate had decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to properly consider and apply Ministerial Direction No. 90, specifically in relation to the weight to be given to primary considerations and the assessment of family violence. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not adequately balanced the humanitarian considerations against the seriousness of his offending conduct.

The court considered paragraphs 7(2) and 7(3) of Ministerial Direction No. 90, which stipulate that primary considerations should generally be given more weight and that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. The court noted that the applicant's offending conduct, which included the murder of his wife and grievous bodily harm against another victim, constituted family violence under paragraph 8.2 of the Direction. The court found that the applicant's threat to kill his wife and child, occurring shortly before the murder, demonstrated an increasing seriousness of conduct. Despite acknowledging the applicant's traumatic background, the court concluded that the Tribunal had properly considered the relevant factors and applied the Direction.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding no error of law. Consequently, the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa was not revoked.